Shamim Ansari @ Chhote vs State of Jharkhand

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.09.2019, passed in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No.29 of 2019, whereby the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar, has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner-juvenile in conflict with law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P, and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the case of the

juvenile-petitioner is similarly situated to that of co-accused namely, Riyaz Ansari and Md. Mustakim Ansari @ Mustakim Ahmad, have been granted

bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in B.A. Nos.2007 of 2020 & 5756 of 2019.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties of

like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No.23

of 2019, on the condition that one of the bailors shall be his father, who shall give an undertaking (i) to ensure the good behaviour of the petitioner, (ii)

to ensure that the juvenile petitioner does not come in contact with any anti-social element, and (iii) produce the juvenile/petitioner before the Probation

Officer as and when directed by the Board. The Probation Officer shall submit the supervision report to the Board for needful.

In case of any adverse report the Board is at liberty to pass necessary order to the effect of cancelling the bail of the petitioner/juvenile. The

petitioner/juvenile shall co-operate and be present before the Board as and when directed, till conclusion of the enquiry.

With the aforesaid direction, the revision is, hereby, allowed.